Romy Haber
I understand that a vibrant civil society is a component of democratic governance––I wish nothing more for Lebanon. I also acknowledge that many of my fellow activists currently engaged in NGOs and nascent political parties mean well, and believe in our country. I salute their efforts. I do not mean this piece to degrade them. Yet, I worry that the Hezbollah-dominated Lebanese regime is trying to manipulate civil society for its usual sordid purposes. Research on civil society pinpoints various ways regimes have recurrently done so; all have relevance to Lebanon but I will pinpoint only four to keep this piece short.
First, authoritarian regimes tolerate civil society organizations to convey the impression of a functioning democracy to domestic and international audiences. Lebanese democracy however is anything but and civil society should not be manipulated to suggest otherwise. Lest we forget, according to the Democracy Index, Lebanon falls into the hybrid regime category with a score of 4.16 leaning towards authoritarianism. Scores of violations were reported by the Lebanese Association for Democratic Elections (LADE) during the last elections, on top of a long history of political intimidation and assassinations––the Loqman Slim affair is a case in point.
Second, authoritarian governments seek to structure the political discourse in societies they control. Illiberal elite also attempt to legitimate themselves through historical narratives and foundational myths, especially from anticolonial struggles and wars of independence. Hence, the common “Resistance is not terrorism” narrative in Lebanon. Unfortunately, some civil society groups have been parroting this specific narrative since 2019. All the excuses these groups use to demonize sovereigntists are unconvincing. By failing to challenge the ideational pillars of the Lebanese regime, some civil society groups help legitimize its illiberalism.
Furthermore, research also suggests the following: “where civil society enters into dialogue with an authoritarian regime and uses the avenues for limited participation provided by the latter, social discontent is depoliticized and channeled into forms of collective action that do not threaten the authoritarian political order.” Back in 2019, the secretary-general of Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah hailed a reforms package and reassured the protesters that they will be implemented. In that speech, he also repeated President Michel Aoun’s call for dialogue and welcomed representatives of the movement to deliver a “clear set of demands”. The next day a group of “activists” showed up at the presidential palace with “these sets of demands”. At best, this is naïve––at worst, this is tantamount to being deliberately a pawn in the hands of the Lebanese regime.
Finally, studies on civil society in authoritarian regimes agree that one important motive for these regimes to tolerate civil society groups is for the welfare-oriented goals some play.Many civil society groups in Lebanon are providing services the government fails to provide. This in itself is certainly not a bad thing. However, when civil society organizations provide services they can help defuse public anger. And it is important to keep in mind that authoritarian regimes often aim at co-opting civil society-based projects to take credit for the social services provided by the civil society groups. This is especially true when international donor funds are channeled through co-opted civil society organizations.